CONSTABLE MOSES AGAIN BEFORE THE COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2664, 5 April 1905, Page 28

CONSTABLE MOSES AGAIN BEFORE THE COURT.

BATL REFUSED.

1 At the City Courts, Police Division, on Saturday morning 1 Constable Moses was again before the Bench, charged with breaking and entering and theft. The Hon. H. Gourley and Mr J. Duthie, J.P.s, presided. It will be remembered that Moses, who was committed last Thursday for trial at the next criminal sessions of the Supreme Court, managed to find the heavy bail fixed, and was released on Friday, but only to he rearrested, ge was charged on Saturday with

having, on or about January 16, 1905, broken into, and entered the warehouse premises of the General Drapery Importing Company of New Zealand and stolen therefrom 11yds of dark tweed and two Mosgiel tugs, of the total value of £9 ss, being an indictable offence.

Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared for the prosecution, and he was accompanied by Police Commissioner Dinnie. Mr Hanlon appeared on behalf of "accused. „

On the application of the Crown Prosecutor a remand till next Friday was gi anted, the defence offering no objection.

Mr Hanlon then asked the Bench to fix bail.

Mr Fraser paid he desirod to be heard on that point. He was instructed by the Commissioner of Police to wholly oppcee any application for bail. His instructions were that in the event of bail being granted there was a possibility of the accused not answering to his trial. The matter was one wholly within the discretion of the Bench. On the last occasion the accused was before a magistrate had bail been opposed it would have been refused. He (Mr Fraser) now formally opposed bail, and transferred responsibility in the matter from the prosecution to the Bench.

Mr Hankm submit t-ed that bail should be granted, and said the Crown Prosecutor's reasons were untenable. He would like to know, if the magistrate was inclined to refuse bail the other day, why the- Commissioner did not then oppose it. The Crown allowed the accused to be bailed out and then" it suggested he would not answer at the- trial. On the first occasion the accused was bailed out he answered that, then he was further remanded for eight- days and answered again, and when he wae committed for trial the bail was doubled on the- understanding that ofcher charges were pending. The bail was very heavy, but the accused obtained it, and the moment he did so the police arrested him on another charge. Ifc seemed to him (Mr Hanlon), and he did not hesitate to say .so, that the police were making far too much of these charges. Everything said and done- in connection with these charges was reported to the letter. It would be unfair to refuse bail at this stage, as his Honor the Judge was absent ar the Court of Appeal ; were his Honor here he (Mr Hanlon) could call upon the Bench to show cause for refusing to grant bail. The first jmnciple o f law was that a man was presumed to be innocent until proved guilty, and it was the duty of the Bench to assume the accused innocent unless proved otherwise.

The Hon. Mr Gourley said the Bench had come to the conclusion to refuse bail. The Bench thought it better to refuse bail right out than to make it so high that accused could not obtain ifc. Aocused would stand remanded till Friday next, and'bail would be refused.